assess_programme

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does signal a read-oriented operation ('Reads observations... and best_trials'), but never explicitly states it is side-effect free, nor whether it is expensive or requires prior observations to exist. Output schema existence relieves it of return-value detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing blank line and the unexplained '(commitment 8)' tag are the only minor waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description supplies adequate purpose and data-source context for a diagnostic tool. It still omits whether the operation is purely read-only and what preconditions (e.g., existing observations/trials) must hold, leaving a gap given the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (programme_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning about the ID's format or constraints, hitting the baseline for a well-covered single-parameter schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (assess) and resource (programme) plus the concrete judgment it produces (progressive vs degenerating), which distinguishes it from sibling mutation/query tools like get_trial_status or check_invariants. The parenthetical '(commitment 8)' is unexplained internal jargon but does not obscure the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to invoke this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The sentence about reading state.db and best_trials describes data sources, not usage conditions, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.